Um, guys... Federer is IMPROVING

The only thing hilarious here is the fact that you've mistaken me for attacking Roger RG when I'm not, at all. "Completeness" isn't some kind of integrity to slams that I invented whilst sipping one too many absinthes. Fact remains that many people will discount RG 2009 (again, not some kind of invention of mine). Since Fed's been beaten by Rafa every time they met at RG, it makes sense that beating Rafa at RG to take the title would've been the best way to complete his collection.

Actually, yes. If Rafa can only win whatever tournaments Djokovic isn't in, then he's merely treating himself to scraps, albeit very high-value, million-dollar, record-setting scraps, but scraps nonetheless...just like RG 2009 for Fed and RG 2011 for Rafa. I'm not saying they don't count as wins, I'm saying that it wouldn't mean as much sentimentally.

Well that's what you believe, not a fact. And I'm pretty sure you may get excommunicated for even thinking that Rafa's superior to Fed on clay. It's all in Fed's head and on his racquet, remember?

I'll take your word for it.

As for the "weak era" argument, the argument goes that whilst Rafa had Fed, the GOAT, in the way of his RGs, Fed had no-one on the other three slams for at least 3 years, allowing him to rack up titles in that time. I don't think highly of this argument however, so I'll leave it at that.

Well that makes you one of the rare, reasonable people on the forum. As you can see from the amount of threads about how Fed's backhand is now invincible, not everyone thinks that way. Actually, scratch that, just about no-one thinks the same way.

Click to expand...

If it will be held against Federer, why not against Vilas, Kuerten, Agassi, Bruguera, Gaudio, Laver, Costa, Courrier etc. They never beat Nadal to win the French and probably couldnt if he stood in their way.

If it will be held against Federer, why not against Vilas, Kuerten, Agassi, Bruguera, Gaudio, Laver, Costa, Courrier etc. They never beat Nadal to win the French and probably couldnt if he stood in their way.

If it will be held against Federer, why not against Vilas, Kuerten, Agassi, Bruguera, Gaudio, Laver, Costa, Courrier etc. They never beat Nadal to win the French and probably couldnt if he stood in their way.

Federer is playing his best in a while right now. Hasn't looked this great since AO 2010 imo.
No longer the instinct player he used to be, but as his talent fades he seems to think things through more.
Djokovic seems to be in bad form, and Nadal is declining very fast- the #1 ranking is getting closer

If it will be held against Federer, why not against Vilas, Kuerten, Agassi, Bruguera, Gaudio, Laver, Costa, Courrier etc. They never beat Nadal to win the French and probably couldnt if he stood in their way.

Click to expand...

Something that I always kinda felt about the Federer-Nadal clay matchup is that obviously Federer played Nadal to his limits in Rome 2006, final set TB if I remember correctly..

Obviously results wise he's not better than many of those in your list, but I kinda feel like talent wise and his strength on the surface would make he's one of the best players on the surface out there.

Something that I always kinda felt about the Federer-Nadal clay matchup is that obviously Federer played Nadal to his limits in Rome 2006, final set TB if I remember correctly..

Obviously results wise he's not better than many of those in your list, but I kinda feel like talent wise and his strength on the surface would make he's one of the best players on the surface out there.

Click to expand...

Yeah. From 2005, the only player who could consistently beat Federer at Roland Garros was Nadal. If Nadal wasn't the greatest clay court player of all time, Federer would be among joeri888's list.

I really don't think it matters a whole lot how he does in Miami, its always been a difficult place for Roger in the conditions there so i don't think a loss there would bother him a whole lot or put him off his stride, he's already had a fantastic start to the season probably better than he'd hoped so its just great he's already got a big title under his belt, it would be great to continue the form through Miami but its not as if if he loses suddenly all the momentum of winning those 3 titles will be gone, it won't really play a big part because after is the switch onto the clay so a whole knew phase of the season. Although this is a great chance for Roger to win here considering he's on such a role.

I really don't think it matters a whole lot how he does in Miami, its always been a difficult place for Roger in the conditions there so i don't think a loss there would bother him a whole lot or put him off his stride, he's already had a fantastic start to the season probably better than he'd hoped so its just great he's already got a big title under his belt, it would be great to continue the form through Miami but its not as if if he loses suddenly all the momentum of winning those 3 titles will be gone, it won't really play a big part because after is the switch onto the clay so a whole knew phase of the season. Although this is a great chance for Roger to win here considering he's on such a role.

Click to expand...

I hope his start to the year isn't what Federer "hoped" for, but that it was what he expected. Federer looks like a man on a mission on the tennis court, looking to finish business as soon as possible and win, nothing else. If he loses in Miami, I can only hope it's not to Nadal, or else his confidence may be a bit blown going into the clay season.

The only thing hilarious here is the fact that you've mistaken me for attacking Roger RG when I'm not, at all. "Completeness" isn't some kind of integrity to slams that I invented whilst sipping one too many absinthes. Fact remains that many people will discount RG 2009 (again, not some kind of invention of mine). Since Fed's been beaten by Rafa every time they met at RG, it makes sense that beating Rafa at RG to take the title would've been the best way to complete his collection.

Click to expand...

Many will discount Fed's 2009 and many will accept it for what it is, the guy reached 5 finals and caught a break one year when he didn't have to face Nadal, it means his consistency paid off in the end and it's Nadal's problem he couldn't deal with Sodrling that year not Fed's.

Actually, yes. If Rafa can only win whatever tournaments Djokovic isn't in, then he's merely treating himself to scraps, albeit very high-value, million-dollar, record-setting scraps, but scraps nonetheless...just like RG 2009 for Fed and RG 2011 for Rafa. I'm not saying they don't count as wins, I'm saying that it wouldn't mean as much sentimentally.

Click to expand...

First of all, slam titles are not scraps and as I said before are not about beating any particular player but winning 7 BO5 matches in a row.

Secondly, you're looking at those slams wins from the perspective of an internet poster, I'd hazard to guess that Fed and Nadal view them completely different, they know how hard it is to win a slam and value every single one of them sentimentally.

Well that's what you believe, not a fact. And I'm pretty sure you may get excommunicated for even thinking that Rafa's superior to Fed on clay. It's all in Fed's head and on his racquet, remember?

Click to expand...

The match might be on Fed's racquet on HC and grass though even then it's stretching it considering how Nadal forces Federer to either play low percentage tennis or get yanked around court by Nadal's FH as soon as he coughs an inevitable short ball off the BH side, Fed has to redline to win (that has always been the case in their match-up).

I mean going by that logic you could say that when big hitters like Safin, Soderling, Berdych, Delpo etc. play Fed the match is on their racquet but reality is they'll more often than fail to execute their aggressive gameplan at high enough level from start to finish to beat Fed.

As for the "weak era" argument, the argument goes that whilst Rafa had Fed, the GOAT, in the way of his RGs, Fed had no-one on the other three slams for at least 3 years, allowing him to rack up titles in that time. I don't think highly of this argument however, so I'll leave it at that.

Click to expand...

But that's the catch see, if all Fed dominated was a weak era how does that make him a strong player(let alone GOAT) ? He was just the best among a bunch of weaklings. Furthemore we're talking about weak field as a whole here in a certain period, problem is during that period half of Nadal's FO titles came so if that era was indeed so weak than his titles are devalued as well.

Well that makes you one of the rare, reasonable people on the forum. As you can see from the amount of threads about how Fed's backhand is now invincible, not everyone thinks that way. Actually, scratch that, just about no-one thinks the same way.

Click to expand...

Disagree, I've seen quite a few people here with the same attitude (heck just read Mustard's posts in this thread or something).

But that's the catch see, if all Fed dominated was a weak era how does that make him a strong player(let alone GOAT) ? He was just the best among a bunch of weaklings. Furthemore we're talking about weak field as a whole here in a certain period, problem is during that period half of Nadal's FO titles came so if that era was indeed so weak than his titles are devalued as well.

Click to expand...

I just want to add that if Federer played in weak era (and a weak era is as Zagor defined it), then Nadal's claim to GOAT is severly hampered. The head-to-head becomes a much lesser factor in determining the GOAT (even lesser than it is now) and any title that Nadal defeated Federer for is devalued (because Federer was also part of the weak era). That is why the weak era damages Nadal's claim to GOAT also, because some of the strongest arguments for his GOAThood are so dependent upon Roger's status as one of the greatest ever players.

I think he's playing better tennis right now than he did in 08-11, which is really nice to see. Starting with Rotterdam, Federer has appeared "looser" to me on the court...he's really hitting through the ball and playing aggressively.

But I'm not going to be a fool and think Federer's problems with Nadal are over. Best of 3 vs. best of 5 alone is a different beast. And Nadal made a push at the end of the Indian Wells match, so it's pretty clear Federer's troubles with Nadal are far from over.

Many will discount Fed's 2009 and many will accept it for what it is, the guy reached 5 finals and caught a break one year when he didn't have to face Nadal, it means his consistency paid off in the end and it's Nadal's problem he couldn't deal with Sodrling that year not Fed's.

Click to expand...

All I'm saying is that I'm sure for Fed it'd mean more to beat Rafa for the title than beating Soderling, not whether it's Fed's fault he won RG 2009 without Rafa or not, or whether it counts as a slam win. A slam win is a slam win, but I'm sure beating Rafa would've meant more to Roger.

Secondly, you're looking at those slams wins from the perspective of an internet poster, I'd hazard to guess that Fed and Nadal view them completely different, they know how hard it is to win a slam and value every single one of them sentimentally.

Click to expand...

Of course they do. But again, I'm sure it'd have meant more to them had they beaten their nemeses to get the title, than without.

But that's the catch see, if all Fed dominated was a weak era how does that make him a strong player(let alone GOAT) ? He was just the best among a bunch of weaklings. Furthemore we're talking about weak field as a whole here in a certain period, problem is during that period half of Nadal's FO titles came so if that era was indeed so weak than his titles are devalued as well.

Click to expand...

Playing in a weak era doesn't necessarily mean Roger is a poor player. It's workable , if you maintain that Roger was always a great player, just that the field was worse then than it is now. If Roger had to play the current field back then, he'd have fewer titles.

I just want to add that if Federer played in weak era (and a weak era is as Zagor defined it), then Nadal's claim to GOAT is severly hampered. The head-to-head becomes a much lesser factor in determining the GOAT (even lesser than it is now) and any title that Nadal defeated Federer for is devalued (because Federer was also part of the weak era). That is why the weak era damages Nadal's claim to GOAT also, because some of the strongest arguments for his GOAThood are so dependent upon Roger's status as one of the greatest ever players.

Click to expand...

Again, the way I understand it, for the weak era argument to work, it must mean that only the field's calibre goes down, whilst Roger retains his. That way, Rafa's historic thumpings of Roger on different surfaces still means something. The only thing affected therefore, would be a big question mark over many of Roger's 16 GS titles, as they were won without competition worth worrying about.

Anyway, I'm not going to go on about the weak-era argument; I think it's a load of bull, so I'll leave that there. Leave the Fed degrading to the *******s; I'm not one of them.

Again, the way I understand it, for the weak era argument to work, it must mean that only the field's calibre goes down, whilst Roger retains his. That way, Rafa's historic thumpings of Roger on different surfaces still means something. The only thing affected therefore, would be a big question mark over many of Roger's 16 GS titles, as they were won without competition worth worrying about.

Anyway, I'm not going to go on about the weak-era argument; I think it's a load of bull, so I'll leave that there. Leave the Fed degrading to the *******s; I'm not one of them.

Click to expand...

Yeah, this has been discussed at large and really, it doesn't matter. What's done is done and in the future, no one will look at the calibre of the field, simply the results against those players placed in front of Federer, Nadal, etc.

All I'm saying is that I'm sure for Fed it'd mean more to beat Rafa for the title than beating Soderling, not whether it's Fed's fault he won RG 2009 without Rafa or not, or whether it counts as a slam win. A slam win is a slam win, but I'm sure beating Rafa would've meant more to Roger.

Click to expand...

Well yes a victory over Nadal at RG would have made the title win more special, can't disagree with that.

Of course they do. But again, I'm sure it'd have meant more to them had they beaten their nemeses to get the title, than without.

Click to expand...

Probably but how much more is debatable, as I said guys like Fed or Nadal have a different perspective than a tennis fan who's watching it on TV, they know how much hard work you have to put in to win any slam and they'd jump at any opportunity to win another one.

In short the only thing they really care (again IMO) is about winning the big titles(slams first and foremost), the other nuances are mostly for hardcore tennis fans to discuss on an internet forum and for talking heads to have what to yap about in their commentary.

It's workable , if you maintain that Roger was always a great player, just that the field was worse then than it is now.

Click to expand...

But that's the problem, the field worse being then refers to the period in which Nadal won half of his FO titles, a supposed CC GOAT that owes half of his titles to weak era? And again I know he beat Fed but the thing is:

-One player doesn't make a field, the field represents the whole of competition available at the time.

-How is Fed such a great scalp that adds to Nadal's legacy if he's just a weak era benefactor?

Again I just can't see how denigrating Fed's competition (and as a consequence Fed's achievements/career) isn't denigrating Nadal's at the same time. Their legacy are connected, just as when some rabid Fed fans refer to Nadal as talentless one dimensional pusher or something they're taking away from Fed(for obvious reasons) so are Nadal fans when they refer to Fed's competitions as weak.

If Roger had to play the current field back then, he'd have fewer titles.

Click to expand...

Maybe, but again most people that are calling Fed's competition weak are Nadal fans(or supposed Nadal fans) so using that logic Nadal would have had fewer titles as well if this field was present in two of his dominant years (2008 and 2010) as the current field includes current version of Novak who's on a 7-0 (including 3 straight slam finals) winning streak against Nadal.

Well yes a victory over Nadal at RG would have made the title win more special, can't disagree with that.

In a way they are but again winning a slam is such a huge overall achievement that IMO it can't be devalued to any significant degree for not beating any one specific player on the way.

Click to expand...

So it looks like we aren't actually in disagreement here. All I'm saying is that beating Rafa would add value to Roger's RG 2009 win, not that his RG 2009 is worth less because he didn't have to play Rafa to get it. After all, it's inconceivable to think that it's somehow Roger's fault that Rafa lost to Robin that year.

Probably but how much more is debatable, as I said guys like Fed or Nadal have a different perspective than a tennis fan who's watching it on TV, they know how much hard work you have to put in to win any slam and they'd jump at any opportunity to win another one.

In short the only thing they really care (again IMO) is about winning the big titles(slams first and foremost), the other nuances are mostly for hardcore tennis fans to discuss on an internet forum and for talking heads to have what to yap about in their commentary.

Click to expand...

Of course winning slams is top priority to players, but I'm sure legacy is also an aspect they will likely care about.

But that's the problem, the field worse being then refers to the period in which Nadal won half of his FO titles, a supposed CC GOAT that owes half of his titles to weak era? And again I know he beat Fed but the thing is:

-One player doesn't make a field, the field represents the whole of competition available at the time.

-How is Fed such a great scalp that adds to Nadal's legacy if he's just a weak era benefactor?

Click to expand...

I don't know. I'm not a proponent of the weak-era argument, so maybe one of those guys might turn up in this thread to fill both of us in

Again I just can't see how denigrating Fed's competition (and as a consequence Fed's achievements/career) isn't denigrating Nadal's at the same time. Their legacy are connected, just as when some rabid Fed fans refer to Nadal as talentless one dimensional pusher or something they're taking away from Fed(for obvious reasons) so are Nadal fans when they refer to Fed's competitions as weak.

Click to expand...

Hey, you have me confused for a Fed hater, or I have your ******* lambasting for a counterargument...I actually like both Fed and Rafa, just that I like Rafa more than I like Roger

Maybe, but again most people that are calling Fed's competition weak are Nadal fans(or supposed Nadal fans) so using that logic Nadal would have had fewer titles as well if this field was present in two of his dominant years (2008 and 2010) as the current field includes current version of Novak who's on a 7-0 (including 3 straight slam finals) winning streak against Nadal.

Click to expand...

Well, they have to bring down Roger's record somehow, right? Anyway, the more I think about it, the more I think they both played in a perfectly decent era. I can accept however, that the players who posed the most danger back then (like Safin and Nalbandian) were too streaky to pose a perpetual threat when it came to slams. Either that, or Roger (unlike Rafa), had no weaknesses back then, so he made everyone else look like amateurs. I think I'd settle for the easier explanation.

Yeah, this has been discussed at large and really, it doesn't matter. What's done is done and in the future, no one will look at the calibre of the field, simply the results against those players placed in front of Federer, Nadal, etc.

The Federer-Nadal rivalry, whether you like it or not, is stuff of legend. It's true that no-one on reflection is likely going to care about the calibre of the field, but I'm sure, even then, there will be a handful of people like us here on TTW, who'd assert that there could've been no need for the GOAT discussion, if Fed beat Rafa for the RG crown and complete his CGS.

Nadal could never clobber Roger in his peak years. The H2H was 8-6 Nadal till end of 2007. Even in those years when he got 8 wins against Roger he got a lot fewer wins against the field compared to Roger. Hence the matchup issue.

I hope his start to the year isn't what Federer "hoped" for, but that it was what he expected. Federer looks like a man on a mission on the tennis court, looking to finish business as soon as possible and win, nothing else. If he loses in Miami, I can only hope it's not to Nadal, or else his confidence may be a bit blown going into the clay season.

Click to expand...

Even if that were to happen, which it won't, he has been on a great winning streak for smaller tournaments. You have to build on some kind of success, really if you want to be worried you should be worried Nadal has won zero.

Wow so Nadal has 1 French Open then. His 2005 was the only legitimate one because he didn't face prime Djoker. Actually 2005 can't be considered real either because Lendl and Borg didn't play. We all know that players age like fine wine opposed to milk so Borg and Lendl would be unbeatable in so many ways.

Even if that were to happen, which it won't, he has been on a great winning streak for smaller tournaments. You have to build on some kind of success, really if you want to be worried you should be worried Nadal has won zero.

Click to expand...

I see what you mean. But back in 2010, Nadal went almost a full year without a title either. He then had his best career year ever, winning 3 slams and cleaning up the clay season. He can turn it around very quickly. Roger, though, has been one of the very best at turning around after difficult defeats and going on streaks such as his current one. If he beats Novak (should they meet), that will be another big confidence boost.

I see what you mean. But back in 2010, Nadal went almost a full year without a title either. He then had his best career year ever, winning 3 slams and cleaning up the clay season. He can turn it around very quickly. Roger, though, has been one of the very best at turning around after difficult defeats and going on streaks such as his current one. If he beats Novak (should they meet), that will be another big confidence boost.

Click to expand...

I think part of that was a significant drop off by other players. I mean don't get me wrong, I was sure Nadal would be back to winning once clay court season came around, but the way he totally dominated while not even playing as good as he did in 2007 (in my opinion) was partly down to playing Verdasco, ferrer and others instead of Djokovic (he played Federer once on the clay though and it was a fairly tough match)

In 2009 Djokovic battled Nadal in MC, Rome and especially Madrid, but in 2010 could not even get to face him to test him. In 2011 he goes 2-0 on clay against Rafa. I think witout the dip that 2010 clay season would have been a bigger test for Nadal, he might have lost one final, he might have won them all (just in more hard fought fashion), but this year if there is not a dropoff by Djokovic he will have a much bigger test than in 2010 and if he does overcome that it will be bigger than snapping the title drought from 20010-2011.

I think part of that was a significant drop off by other players. I mean don't get me wrong, I was sure Nadal would be back to winning once clay court season came around, but the way he totally dominated while not even playing as good as he did in 2007 (in my opinion) was partly down to playing Verdasco, ferrer and others instead of Djokovic (he played Federer once on the clay though and it was a fairly tough match)

In 2009 Djokovic battled Nadal in MC, Rome and especially Madrid, but in 2010 could not even get to face him to test him. In 2011 he goes 2-0 on clay against Rafa. I think witout the dip that 2010 clay season would have been a bigger test for Nadal, he might have lost one final, he might have won them all (just in more hard fought fashion), but this year if there is not a dropoff by Djokovic he will have a much bigger test than in 2010 and if he does overcome that it will be bigger than snapping the title drought from 20010-2011.

MC will be key this year, it could make or break his year.

Click to expand...

I more or less agree. Nadal had to play radically different in the USO that year to win it, as I don't think anyone was going to beat him there. So in that respect, he had to play at a very high level. For Wimbledon, I didn't feel his level was that high. His clay sweep was impressive, but apart from 2011, when has his clay season not been impressive?

Monte-Carlo is critical for him to win, though, I don't know if it's simply a win there or a win over Djokovic that will propel him to go on a tear this year.

I more or less agree. Nadal had to play radically different in the USO that year to win it, as I don't think anyone was going to beat him there. So in that respect, he had to play at a very high level. For Wimbledon, I didn't feel his level was that high. His clay sweep was impressive, but apart from 2011, when has his clay season not been impressive?

Monte-Carlo is critical for him to win, though, I don't know if it's simply a win there or a win over Djokovic that will propel him to go on a tear this year.

Click to expand...

Yeah the US Open he played great, would have had to be an amazing performance from Federer or Djokovic to stop him there, anything else would not have got it done.Plus he was so high on confidence at that point.

Wimbledon was ropey from him, he struggled to Petzschner and Hasse, but he has often had a few 5 set scares. He played better in 2011 though.

The clay season is hard to judge cos he didn't even have to break a sweat to beat who he faced, so impossible to tell how his traditional 2005-2011 rivals (Federer and Djokovic) would have fared (Fed did play him once and it was a fairly close match considering Federer couldn't even win Estoril) or what levels nadal had that year. Given the progression of Novak from 2008 where he pushed him to 3 sets in hamburg including winning a set 6-2, 2009 where he had 3 tough matches on clay, especially Madrid which he kind of should have won (MC was a 3 setter with Novak winning a set 6-2 I think) and then beating him in 2011, my feeling is Novak in good form (without his game falling apart that year) would have given him problems. maybe a win, maybe not, but problems.

Also given the same competition in 2007 nadal would have won all masters series on clay, plus barcelona and won RG without dropping a set.

Yeah the US Open he played great, would have had to be an amazing performance from Federer or Djokovic to stop him there, anything else would not have got it done.Plus he was so high on confidence at that point.

Wimbledon was ropey from him, he struggled to Petzschner and Hasse, but he has often had a few 5 set scares. He played better in 2011 though.

The clay season is hard to judge cos he didn't even have to break a sweat to beat who he faced, so impossible to tell how his traditional 2005-2011 rivals (Federer and Djokovic) would have fared (Fed did play him once and it was a fairly close match considering Federer couldn't even win Estoril) or what levels nadal had that year. Given the progression of Novak from 2008 where he pushed him to 3 sets in hamburg including winning a set 6-2, 2009 where he had 3 tough matches on clay, especially Madrid which he kind of should have won (MC was a 3 setter with Novak winning a set 6-2 I think) and then beating him in 2011, my feeling is Novak in good form (without his game falling apart that year) would have given him problems. maybe a win, maybe not, but problems.

Also given the same competition in 2007 nadal would have won all masters series on clay, plus barcelona and won RG without dropping a set.

Click to expand...

In 2010, going along with your earlier point, no one could have beaten Rafa at Wimbledon that year either. It's not that his level was high (because it wasn't a very impressive tournament from him), but it was because Federer was not playing well and Djokovic had not yet gotten used to grass. I mean, Berdych really destroyed both Roger and Novak, but he didn't really play that well in the final. Not trying to take anything away from Rafa's win, though.

Novak gave him a lot of problems in 2009 at Madrid. Djokovic always had the game, I believe, to trouble Nadal. And I felt that both Nadal and Djokovic knew that too, which is why Novak always somewhat felt confident against Rafa.